TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (8) TMI 244
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted by their agent BHEL Trichy, they should also obtained COD clearance, especially lwhen the assessee is not a Government department? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is right in holding that COD clearance is necessary especially when the agent namely BHEL only represents the foreign collaborator?" 2. The material facts, which are necessary for resolution of the questions of law, are as follows:- The assessee Combustion Engineering Inc.,U.S.A., entered into an agreement with Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Trichy for manufacture of high pressure boilers required for thermal power generation. M/s.Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, a public sector undertaking representing the assessee "foreign company being their collaborators filed return for the assessment year 1984-85 in the representative capacity on 30.06.1984 admitting an income of Rs.2,09,27,650/-. During the previous year, BHEL paid the assessee M/s.Combustion Engineering Incorporation (USA) Rs.1,24,29,628/- as payment for supply of technical documentation/know-how and other services rendered in USA. The assessing officer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner's order and other subsequent proceedings dated 10.09.1998 initiated under section 154 of the Income Tax Act. Hence, it is beyond any iota of doubt that M/s.Combustion Engineering Incorporation (USA) is only an assessee and BHEL is a representative assessee of their collaborator. The treatment of the amount paid by BHEL to M/s.Combustion Engineering Incorporation (USA), is the dispute in issue in this case. Hence the Tribunal ought to have considered the issue on merits without shirking the responsibility on the ground that COD had not been obtained. The COD approval is essential only for a dispute between the Government of India undertaking as against the Government, etc. Here the dispute is not pertaining to the assessment order made of the agent BHEL. Hence, in respect of the dispute between M/s.Combustion Engineering Incorporation and the Revenue, the COD certificate is not essential. He relied on the following decisions. (1) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs. Chairman,Central Board, Direct Taxes and another 2004(168)E.L.T.147(S.C.)= (2004) 267 ITR 647, (2) Union of India Through Cent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Trichy, a Government of India undertaking is only its agent represented the assessee M/s.Combustion Engineering Inc. (USA) as a representative assessee. As per Section 160(1)(i), for the purpose of Income-tax Act, in respect of the income of a non-resident specified in sub-section(1) of section 9, the agent of the non-resident, including a person who is treated as an agent under section 163 of the Act would be regarded as representative assessee. The agent in relation to non-resident includes any person in India, who has any business connection with the non-resident as per Section 163(1) of the Income-tax Act. 9. Thus, the Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Trichy, which is having a business connection with the assessee Combustion Engineering Inc. (USA), is only an agent to the non-resident assessee for the purpose of assessment under the Income-tax Act. To put it otherwise, in the case on hand, the assessee is M/s.Combustion Engineering Inc. (USA). The assessment and other proceedings have been made in the name of the assessee M/s.Combustion Engineering Inc. (USA). Appeals have been filed by the assessee represented by agent Bharat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; (underline supplied) 11. In Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs. Chairman,Central Board, Direct Taxes and another 2004 (168)E.L.T.147(S.C.)=(2004) 267 ITR 647, a notice of reassessment under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1994-95 was issued against the appellant therein, a public sector company, the matter was referred to the High Powered Committee formed by the Government of India pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court, from which clearance had to be obtained for litigation by Government Departments or public sector bodies. The Committee resolved that since the appellant was contemplating a writ petition against a show cause notice the appellant was advised to await the appealable order and accordingly did not permit the contemplated litigation. The appellant, however, filed a writ petition challenging the notice and the High Court dismissed the same on the merits. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that as th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The Chief Conservator of Forests as the petitioner can neither be treated as the State of Andhra Pradesh nor can it be a case of misdescription of the State of Andhra Pradesh. The fact is that the State of Andhra Pradesh was not the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable in law. The High Court, had it deemed fit so to do, would have added the State of Andhra Pradesh as a party; however, it proceeded, in our view erroneously, as if the State of Andhra Pradesh was the petitioner which, as a matter of fact, was not the case and could not have been treated as such. As the writ petition itself was not maintainable, it follows as a corollary that the appeal by the Chief Conservator of Forests is also not maintainable. We are unable to accept the contention of Ms.Amareswari that merely because the officer concerned had obtained the permission of the Government to file an appeal, which is not placed before us, the writ petition and the appeal should be treated as an appeal by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The permission granted to the authority concerned might be a permission to file an appeal which cannot reasonably be construed as authorisation to file the appe....